Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaints about a suspected unlicensed HMO and anti social behaviour by its residents. It also failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint about misuse and blocking of his bins. The faults caused avoidable time and trouble and frustration to Mr X which the Council has agreed to remedy by making a payment of £100 to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

1. failed to investigate his complaints about anti social behaviour from people living at or visiting a property and that the property could be an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation.

2. failed to provide details of how many people live in the property in response to his Freedom of Information request.

2. Mr X considers that as a result he has suffered from anti social behaviour from people associated with the property for longer than necessary.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated complaint a). I explain at the end of this statement why I have not investigated complaint b).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information from Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Houses in Multiple Occupation

8. The law provides landlords must apply for licence if five or more tenants share a property and facilities and they form more than one household.

Community trigger

9. There is a mechanism for people suffering from anti social behaviour to request a review of the handling of their case by relevant bodies including the police and councils. A person can use the community trigger if they have made three complaints in the previous six months of harassment, alarm or distress where no action has been taken or if they are not satisfied with the action taken.

What happened

10. In November 2020, Mr X made a complaint to the Council’s Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) team. Mr X’s complaints included anti social behaviour from a property which he considered to be an unlicensed HMO. Mr X also complained the residents were interfering with his refuse bins.
11. Mr X chased a response to his complaint in December 2020. The Council asked Mr X to provide further details. In responding, Mr X also made further complaints of anti social behaviour by the residents, including obstructive parking and placing their waste in his bins. Mr X chased the Council for a response.
12. In March 2021 Mr X made a complaint to the Council that it had not responded to his complaints about the residents of the property. The Council considered the complaint through all stages of its three stage complaints procedure. The Council acknowledged it did not reply to Mr X’s complaint about the property as officers were unsure how to progress it. The Council also said it would investigate Mr X’s concerns about the property being an unlicensed HMO and advised him to report anti social behaviour to the police. In response to Mr X’s stage three complaint the Council advised its checks had established the property was not a HMO so did not require a licence.
13. The Council apologised to Mr X for not responding to his complaint about the property and its residents. It declined Mr X’s request for a time and trouble payment.
14. In August 2021 Mr X made a complaint to the Council about the residents parking in front of his bins and using his bins. Mr X has said he did not receive a response to this complaint.
15. Mr X has also made complaints to the police about anti social behaviour by the tenants.
16. In response to my enquiries the Council has said:

• The police have not contacted the Council about the incidents reported to them by Mr X.
• Its safe, clean and tidy team has not had any reports from Mr X about misuse of the bins since 2019
• An officer visited the property but did not consider it to be a HMO. Further checks by the Council concluded the property was not a HMO.
• Mr X could choose to use the community trigger if the police have concluded investigating his complaints and if he meets the criteria.
• It is addressing the faults in how it dealt with Mr X’s complaints by training.

Analysis

17. The Council has acknowledged it delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaints of November and December 2020. This is fault.
18. Mr X has also provided evidence to show he made a complaint to the Council in August 2021 about the misuse and obstruction of his bins. The Council has said this should have been considered as a service request but it did not properly record the request. So, it does not know if a correct response was provided to Mr X. On, balance, there is no evidence to show the Council responded to this complaint. This is fault.
19. The Council apologised for its delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint about the property and its residents which is an appropriate remedy. However, the delay caused some avoidable time and trouble to Mr X as he had to chase several times for a response and make a complaint. The Council’s failure to respond to his complaint of August 2021 will have caused frustration to him. The Council should remedy this injustice.
20. I cannot conclude, on balance, that the Council’s delay in investigating Mr X’s complaints of November and December 2020 and failure to respond in August 2021 caused Mr X to suffer anti social behaviour for longer than necessary. The Council would have advised Mr X to report anti social behaviour to the police. I cannot know if the Council would have taken action on Mr X’s complaint of August 2021. The Council should also now consider the issues raised by Mr X in his email of August 2021 and decide if there are any matters it can now investigate.
21. The Council has now investigated the complaint about the property being an unlicensed HMO. The is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that the property was an unlicensed HMO. The Council made this decision following a visit to the property and carrying out checks. I therefore do not have grounds to question its decision that the property is not an unlicensed HMO.
22. I have considered if the Council should have signposted Mr X to the community trigger. On balance, I do not consider it is at fault for not doing so. Mr X made most of his complaints about anti social behaviour to the police so he would be seeking a review of its actions rather than the Council’s.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. That the Council:
1. Makes a payment of £100 to acknowledge the avoidable time, trouble and frustration caused to Mr X by its delay in responding to his complaints of November and December 2020 and failure to respond to his complaint of August 2021.
2. Considers his complaint of August 2021 to determine if there are any matters it can now investigate and notify Mr X of the outcome of its consideration and any investigation.
24. The Council should take the action at a) and b) within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Council is at fault as it delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaints about a suspected unlicensed HMO and anti social behaviour by its residents. It also failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint about misuse and blocking of his bins. The faults caused avoidable time and trouble and frustration to Mr X which the Council has agreed to remedy in a proportionate way. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

26. I have not investigated complaint b) as it is open to Mr X to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner about how the Council’s decision not to release information in response to Mr X’s Freedom of Information request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman